The issue, as I see it, is that Frank's photograph isn't yours, Shel.
When critiquing someone else's work, you cannot answer to what
*their* intent was, you can only respond to the photograph. For you,
the microphone ruins the shot, but that isn't true for Frank, I or
several other people, judging by the comments I've seen about it.
When I critique someone else's work, sometimes I have to say "it
isn't to my taste" or "there are elements in this photograph that I
find too distracting", or similar, but to just state flatly that the
mic in this one "ruins the shot" is likely the wrong way to offer the
criticism.
Godfrey
On Nov 22, 2005, at 7:30 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Well, perhaps for you and some others. However, when I make a shot
and
something upsets or detracts from my intent, I consider the shot
ruined.
That's my standard for my own work. I didn't get the shot i
wanted. Maybe
I'm just more critical (at least about my work in general). If you
find
the mic in front of jenny's face acceptable, or an intended part of
the
pic, then yes, ruined would be too strong a word. If I tried to
make a
similar shot, and was shooting in the same venue, I might not have
even
snapped the shutter.
We have a very different way of seeing and accepting a photograph.
I'm
probably too critical most of the time, especially with my own work.
Example: took a pic of a girl on a bicycle. After printing it I
noticed
there was a piece of trash in the frame. I never printed the pic
again -
for years - until I learned how to delete the trash in Photoshop.
So, FWIW, I'm being no more critical of the Pirate Jenny pix as I
am of my
own.
Shel
"You meet the nicest people with a Pentax"
[Original Message]
From: frank theriault
But, Shel: The shot is "ruined" by the mic? I guess you're
entitled
to your opinion, but "ruined"? That's fairly strong language.
BTW, I'm not in any way insulted or hurt by the use of the word. I'm
just surprised by your use of it. Just don't want you to think that
I'm taking anything personally <VBG>.
